Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 July 4

July 4

File:Yildiz Aerial.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original was deleted because of luck of permission. MGA73 (talk) 05:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Henri Matisse, 1904, Luxe, Calme et Volupté, oil on canvas, 98.5 × 118.5 cm, Musée National d'Art Moderne, Centre Pompidou (detail lower center).jpg

No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. (See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication.) Even if the photo is free, the painting itself may not be. Commons is pretty cavalier about this, but should we be? grendel|khan 18:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, a major 1904 Matisse painting which has its own article and thus is irreplaceable as a page illustration. Should we be? 1904! Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My understanding from reading c:COM:Public art and copyrights in the US is that the definition of publication given at Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication is that of the current law, in force from 1978 onwards. Prior to that, the concept of publication was much wider, and for instance included selling the original work as such. This renders the painting under discussion published in 1905. Felix QW (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which part of that section was unclear, but if that's the meaning you took away it should be reworded. Are you looking at the second-to-last paragraph that's specifically about sound recordings? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the section quoting from another text: “publication occurred when … the original or tangible copies of a work are sold, leased, loaned, given away, or otherwise made available to the general public...” (Nimmer, § 4.039(A) Internal citations removed.) Felix QW (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I remembered it was that it was pointed out to me in a very similar situation over at Commons, where I was the one claiming the copyright situation was unclear. Felix QW (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has also been some response on the related Commons thread opened by the nominator here. The general message seems to be "as long as the painting somehow left the artist, it's probably fine", although the details seem to be washy even to the more expert Commons commentators. Felix QW (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the copyright question on this is clear: absent evidence of publication, we have to treat this as unpublished. As such, it will enter the public domain in January 2025. "Publication" for a painting is typically synonymous with reproduction. If it's copied, if it appears in print, etc. Yes, that means most old paintings were not published. That doesn't mean they never enter the public domain, it just means that claims about public domain that assume publication are invalid. They enter the public domain (in the US and France, at least), 70 years after the death of the author. Not !voting delete because it sounds like someone's going to make an NFCC claim -- and that's a whole different question. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Henri Matisse, 1909, La danse (I), Museum of Modern Art.jpg

No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. Also, MoMA claims copyright; it's unclear how valid that is. grendel|khan 18:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, seriously? This is one of Matisse's most famous works, it has its own page (as do most of the paintings you are nominating) and thus is irreplaceable as an illustration for that page. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My understanding from reading c:COM:Public art and copyrights in the US is that the definition of publication given at Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication is that of the current law, in force from 1978 onwards. Prior to that, the concept of publication was much wider, and for instance included selling the original work as such. This renders the painting under discussion published in 1910, as it was sold upon completion to an art collector in Moscow. Felix QW (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Henri Matisse, 1916-17, Le Peintre dans son atelier (The Painter and His Model), oil on canvas, 146.5 x 97 cm, Musée National d'Art Moderne, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris.jpg

No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. Also, the source link is invalid, so I'm not sure if the museum claims copyright, if that's valid. grendel|khan 18:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the painting has its own article, The Painter and His Model, and is thus irreplaceable as an illustrative image, as well as being one of Matisse's most well-known images. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relicense as non-free This seems to have been purchased by a museum from the painter in 1945, and I have been unable to find any exhibition record before that date. It does seem to be discussed sufficiently in its own article for non-free local use. Felix QW (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kylie Minogue Padam Padam video.gif

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No rational for including this, the scenes are not described as part of critical reception or discussion, so per WP:NFCC this is not warranted. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Atelier rouge matisse 1.jpg

No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. Also, MoMA claims copyright; it's unclear how valid that is. grendel|khan 23:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course keep this famous image, which has its own article and is thus irreplaceable as an illustrative image. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please add a free-use template to the article, the problem is that editors assumed these nominated paintings are in public domain so nobody has added the fair-use notice onto their individual articles. I asked the nominator to do so on their talk page. This image is used on 11 articles, probably most can be templated for fair-use. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Batalla de Salta.jpeg

No publication information provided. Just because this was painted before 1929, it doesn't mean that it was published then. grendel|khan 23:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen such a weird requirement for photos of portraits. Was this discussed somewhere before starting deleting files? Cambalachero (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Our Lady of Fatima 4.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfree both in the U.S. and the Philippines. There is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines; more so, the U.S. law which English Wikipedia only follows does not have any FoP for sculptures. Loyola Memorial Park was established in 1964, but the sculpture may date to late 60s or even 70s (unfree for 95+1 years from creation/public display if it was made before 1978; 120+1 years from creation if it was an anonymous work made after 1978, per U.S. terms). No information was provided on who was its sculptor. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Valentino Bautista mausoleum5.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of photographs (photo of photos). There is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines; more so, there is no Freedom of Panorama for copyrighted non-architectural works in the United States. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims on their talk page that the depicted photographs are from 1960s. This claims needs to be substantiated; the photograph on the right side is a colored photograph that I doubt comes from 1960s (more like ca. 1980s-2000s). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Fernando Amorsolo grave4.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfree in the Philippines, where there is no Freedom of Panorama; more so, in the U.S., which is the law that English Wikipedia needs to comply. Per this site, this is a 1972 statue authored by Guillermo Tolentino. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.